JKN (A minor suing through next friend and mother DWN) & another v Chege & another (Civil Appeal 335 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1610 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision cutting a minor's accident compensation from Kshs. 800,000 to Kshs. 500,000, confirming courts may reduce excessive awards.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned judge of the High Court was justified in interfering with and reducing the award of damages made by the trial court (the sole issue of law framed by the Court)
- 2.Whether the High Court erred in law and fact in its assessment of the quantum of damages, thereby making an inordinately low award on general damages
- 3.Whether the High Court disregarded the medical evidence adduced at the trial and thereby made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages suffered by the appellant
Key legal issues
#Scope of a second appeal to the Court of Appeal
A second appeal from the High Court's appellate jurisdiction is confined to matters of law; the Court therefore considered only whether the first appellate court was justified in law in interfering with the trial court's award of damages.
The appeal arose from a High Court decision on first appeal. Citing settled authority, the Court held its remit extends only to questions of law, so findings of fact and the exercise of the discretion on quantum could not be reopened unless the wrong principles were applied or the resulting figure was wholly erroneous. This confined the Court to reviewing the legality of the High Court's interference with the trial award rather than reassessing the injuries afresh.
Test for appellate interference with an award of general damages
An appellate court interferes only where the trial judge took into account an irrelevant factor or left out a relevant one, or where the award is so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
The Court restated the Kemfro Africa test, reinforced in Kenya Power & Lighting v Ganjoni quoting Butt v Khan: awards of general damages are discretionary and appellate courts will not disturb them merely because they would have awarded differently; it must be shown that wrong principles were applied, the evidence was misapprehended in a material respect, or the figure is inordinately high or low. This standard governed the Court's own review of the High Court's exercise of discretion.
Whether the High Court was justified in reducing general damages from Kshs. 800,000 to Kshs. 500,000
It was. The trial award was manifestly excessive when measured against comparable awards for more severe injuries, and the minor suffered no permanent disability, so the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb the reduction.
The High Court had re-evaluated the evidence, confirmed the injuries through the medical report, and compared awards in Njoka (Kshs. 650,000 in 2015 for skull fracture and loss of the left hand), Kariithi (Kshs. 1,500,000 in 2016 for multiple compound fractures) and Nyaga (Kshs. 450,000 reduced to 300,000). Against those figures, Kshs. 800,000 for fractures of the tibia and fibula on both legs without disability was manifestly high. The Court of Appeal was satisfied the interference was justified and dismissed the appeal.
Whether the High Court disregarded the medical evidence
No. The High Court expressly considered the medical report, found the injuries serious but without permanent disability, and that finding properly supported the lower award.
The second ground alleged a wholly erroneous estimate from disregarding medical evidence. The Court found the first appellate court had considered the medical report confirming the fractures and the absence of permanent disability, which was a legitimate factor in fixing quantum. The only slip was describing the pleaded 'transient (brief) loss of consciousness' as 'consistent loss of consciousness', which the Court treated as an immaterial error that did not vitiate the assessment.
Legal principles established
#- A second appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court's appellate jurisdiction is confined to matters of law.
- An appellate court may disturb a trial court's award of damages only where the trial judge took into account an irrelevant factor or left out of account a relevant one, or where the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it is a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate; it must be shown that the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence in some material respect.
- A first appellate court is under a duty to evaluate the evidence before the trial court and reach its own conclusion.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal is dismissed.
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kiambu
- Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over a judgment of the High Court sitting on first appeal; the judgment cites no specific constitutional or statutory provision but confines itself to matters of law.
Relief refused
#Enhancement of general damages from Kshs. 500,000 back to the trial court's award of Kshs. 800,000
The Court found the first appellate court was justified in interfering with the trial award, which was manifestly excessive in the circumstances, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Costs of the appeal
Given the nature of the matter, the Court directed that each party bears its own costs rather than awarding the appellant costs.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This being a second appeal from a judgment of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, our remit is confined to matters of law
The principles to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial Judge were held by the former Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa to be that it must be satisfied either that the Judge, in assessing the damages, took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one, or that, short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. It must be shown that the judge proceeded on wrong principles or that he misapprehended the evidence in some material respect and so arrived at a figure which was either inordinately high or low
Bearing in mind the recent awards and the injuries that the minor sustained, it is this court’s view that the award of the sum of Kshs 800,000 was manifestly high warranting interference by this court.
we are satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, it was justified in interfering with the award of damages by the trial court, having found it to be manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
We therefore find no basis for interfering with the decision of the first appellate court, and we hereby dismiss the appellant’s appeal. Given the nature of the matter, however, we direct that each party bears its own costs of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The memorandum of appeal in this Court is dated 18th July 2018, yet the judgment it impugns is stated to be dated 3rd October 2018 and delivered on 11th October 2018; the memorandum of appeal thus predates the judgment under appeal, which is internally inconsistent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JKN (A minor suing through next friend and mother DWN) & another v Chege & another (Civil Appeal 335 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1610 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1610/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.